28902 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Notices and Idaho Panhandle Zone is adjusting new regulations published in the (2) suitability of areas for various the forest plan revision process from Federal Register of January 5, 2005 (70 purposes; and (3) objectives to help compliance with the 1982 land and FR 1062). move toward the desired conditions. resource management planning Public Involvement: Scheduled This phase of collaboration is expected regulations to compliance with new meetings and details of other public to be completed by fall of 2005. regulations published in the Federal involvement opportunities will be Time Schedule: The remaining forest Register of January 5, 2005 (70 FR posted on the Western Montana plan revision schedule will be 1062). Planning zone Web site, at http:// approximately as follows: This adjustment will result in the www.fs.fed.us/rl/wmpz/. To get on the • Fall 2005: Release proposed forest following: mailing list contact Claudia Narcisco at plans and start 90-day public comment 1. The Responsible Official will now (406) 329–3795, or e-mail, period. be the Forest Supervisors. [email protected]. People currently on • Summer 2006: Release final forest 2. Each National Forest will establish the mailing list will remain. plans and start 30-day public objection an Environmental Management System FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee period. prior to a decision on the revised forest Kramer, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, • Fall 2006: Issue final decision and plans. Lolo National Forest, Fort Missoula, start plan implementation. 3. The emphasis on public Bldg., 24, Missoula, MT 59084, (406) The web site provides additional involvement will shift from comment on 392–3848 or e-mail, [email protected]; information regarding the decision to a range of alternative plans, to iterative or see the Web site at http:// transition to the new planning public-Forest Service collaboration, www.fs.fed.us/rl/wmpz/. regulations, discussion of plan revision intended to meld a single option into a Responsible Officials: David Bull, elements already completed before broadly supported plan. Supervisor, Bitterroot National Forest, making this transition, and other details. For additional information on public 1801 North 1st St., Hamilton, MT 59840. Dated: May 12, 2005. meeting, other public involvement and Catherine Barbouletos, Supervisor, collaborative opportunities, procedural David T. Bull, Flathead National Forest, 1935 Third Supervisor, Bitterroot National Forest. differences between the 1982 and 2004 Ave., Kalispell, Mt 59901. Deborah planning rules, timelines, reasoning Austin, Supervisor, Lolo National Dated: May 12, 2005. behind our decision to transition to the Forest, Building 24, Fort Missoula, Catherine Barbouletos, new planning regulations, information Missoula, MT 59804. Supervisor, Flathead National Forest. on plan revision elements we have already completed before making this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice Dated: May 12, 2005. transition, and other details, consult the of Intent to prepare an environmental Deborah L. R. Austin. Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle Web site: impact statement to revise Land and Supervisor, Lolo National Forest. www.fs.fed.us./kipz. Resource Management Plans was [FR Doc. 05–9980 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am] published in the Federal Register of BILLING CODE 3410–11–M Dated: May 12, 2005. January 20, 2004 (69 FR 2699). The Bob Castaneda, Western Montana Planning zone is Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest. adjusting the forest plan revision ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION [FR Doc. 05–9979 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am] process from compliance with the 1982 COMMISSION BILLING CODE 3410–11–M planning regulations, to compliance with new regulations published in the Request for Public Comment Federal Register of January 5, 2005 (70 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FR 1062). AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization This adjustment will result in the Commission. Forest Service following: ACTION: Request for public comment. 1. The Responsible Official(s) will be Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo National each Forest Supervisor. SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Forests Land and Resource 2. Each National Forest will establish Commission requests comments from Management Plan Revision an Environmental Management System the public regarding specific questions AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. prior to completion of the revised forest relating to the issues selected for ACTION: Notice of Adjustment. plans. Commission study. 3. The emphasis on public DATES: Comments are due by June 17, SUMMARY: Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo involvement will shift from public July 1, or July 15, 2005, as specified National Forests here referred to as the comment on a broad range of alternative below. Western Montana Planning Zone in plans, to iterative public-Forest Service ADDRESSES: Ravalli, Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, collaboration on a single option to arrive By electronic mail: Lake, Flathead, Lincoln, Lewis and at a broadly supported plan for each [email protected]. By mail: Antitrust Clark, Granite, and Powell Counties, Forest. Modernization Commission, Attn: Montana, and Idaho County, Idaho. A Public collaboration will begin in late Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., Notice of Intent to prepare an spring of 2005, with each Forest using Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005. environmental impact statement to some combination of the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: revise Land and Resource Management methods: (1) Posting draft desired Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & Plans was published in the Federal conditions and supporting maps on the General Counsel, Antitrust Register of January 20, 2004 (69 FR Web site; (2) open houses; (3) invited Modernization Commission. Telephone: 2699). The Western Montana Planning presentations; (4) newsletters; and (5) (202) 233–0701; e-mail: [email protected]. Zone is adjusting the forest plan on-going collaborative dialogue in Internet: http://www.amc.gov. revision process from compliance with community-based working groups. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the 1982 land and resource management initial focal points of the collaborative Antitrust Modernization Commission planning regulations to compliance with process will be: (1) Desired conditions; was established to ‘‘examine whether VerDate jul<14>2003 22:14 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM 19MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Notices 28903 the need exists to modernize the Topics for Comment for substantive antitrust violations? If antitrust laws and to identify and study The Commission requests comment so, in what circumstances and what related issues.’’ Antitrust Modernization on the following nine topics. Comments types of cases should such fines be Commission Act of 2002, Public Law are requested to be submitted by the available? If DOJ and/or the FTC are 107–273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In date specified. given such authority, how, if at all, conducting its review of the antitrust should it affect the availability of laws, the Commission is required to Comments Requested by June 17, 2005 damages awarded to private plaintiffs? ‘‘solicit the views of all parties I. Remedies 2. Should Congress clarify, expand, or concerned with the operation of the limit the FTC’s authority to seek antitrust laws.’’ Id. By this request for A. Treble Damages monetary relief under 15 U.S.C. 53(b)? comments, the Commission seeks to 1. Are treble damage awards F. Private Injunctive Relief provide a full opportunity for interested appropriate in civil antitrust cases? members of the public to provide input Please support your response, 1. Has the ability of states and private regarding certain issues selected for addressing issues such as inducements plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief under Commission study. From time to time, to private enforcement, evidence 15 U.S.C. 26 benefited consumers or the Commission may issue additional indicating that treble damage awards caused harm to businesses or others? requests for comment on issues selected have led to either over-deterrence or Please provide any specific examples, for study. under-deterrence, the probability of evidence, or analyses supporting this Comments should be submitted in antitrust violations being detected, and assessment. What would be the written form. Comments may be how ‘‘optimal’’ deterrence levels can consequences if the availability of submitted on more than one topic area, best be determined. injunctive relief to states and private but comments on each topic should be 2. Should other procedural changes be plaintiffs under 15 U.S.C. 26 were submitted in a separate document. Each considered to address issues relating to changed? Should standing to pursue comment should identify the topic to treble damage awards, such as providing injunctive relief under federal antitrust which it relates. Comments need not courts with discretion in awarding law be different for states than it is for address every question within each treble (or higher) damages, limiting the private parties? 2. Are there currently sufficient topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words availability of treble damages to certain safeguards (e.g., judicial discretion and on a particular topic should include a types of offenses (e.g., per se unlawful the Cargill requirement that private brief (less than 250 word) summary. price fixing versus conduct subject to plaintiffs establish antitrust injury) to Commenters may submit